Skip to content

Indoctrinating Children in the Gay Agenda

October 16, 2009

Gay Agenda.  Indoctrination.  Are all these words simply scary boogey man rhetoric?  No.  Words mean things.  Here it is, right here.  Kids being reprogrammed into thinking that homosexuality is normal, good and right.

This video clearly shows what the intent of what those pushing the gay agenda in Maine are aiming for.

Parents, Please be aware of what is going on in public schools at your expense.
Children from the tenderest age are being indoctrinated with twisted views on relationships and society. At a time when few children can read well,  schools should be focusing on teaching academic skills instead of destroying our children’s souls with this garbage. These teachers refuse to teach the Bible in schools saying that they must protect the “religious freedom” of each child. Yet they have no problem with violating the moral freedom of each child and parent in teaching them evil things that they do not wish to be taught.

For these people “freedom” is the power to impose their immoral lifestyle on everyone else.

Advertisements
12 Comments leave one →
  1. Clark permalink
    October 17, 2009 1:51 am

    Oh god, Marie. Really? This little girl has two moms! It’s reality. Do you want her to be in the closet too?

    I have to ask…you seem obsessed with this subject. Are you gay?

    You seem to live in this unrealistic, Ozzie and Harriet world that never really existed. There’s nothing immoral about gay people. There’s definitely something immoral about picking on people who are on the fringe of society. We’re not out to scare you, harm you, or change you. This fight will go on and you will not win.

    • mlabot permalink*
      October 17, 2009 8:49 am

      “You seem to live in this unrealistic, Ozzie and Harriet world that never really existed.”

      Clark, this is not an accurate representation of the historical facts. Gay relationships have never historically been accepted by major societies as pseudo marriage. It’s only in the last few years that the normalization of homosexuality has really started to take hold.

      ” There’s nothing immoral about gay people. ”

      I agree that people place different values on homosexuality, Some people actually do think that homosexuality is normal, good and right. I however have not been convinced of that. There is far too much of a pathological bent in homosexual behavior, specifically between men honestly, to really be convincing.

      “I have to ask…you seem obsessed with this subject. Are you gay?”

      No, actually I do not feel the need to sexualize my friendships with other women. Is that the answer to your question, or were you simply hoping to insult me? I suspect the latter, however you should know that you haven’t.

      “There’s definitely something immoral about picking on people who are on the fringe of society. We’re not out to scare you, harm you, or change you.”

      The reason I began this blog is because of the movement to normalize homosexuality in my state through marriage redefinition. Gays and lesbians have always existed, but I believe firmly in live and let live. Unfortunately that has not been good enough for those in the activist gay movement. The gay lobby DOES seek to change society. I don’t believe those changes are healthy changes. That is why I blog, to raise awareness of the issues at stake in neutering marriage. As far as picking on anyone, I’d challenge you to find anything derogotory here. You won’t find it because that’s not what this is about.

      “This fight will go on and you will not win.”

      I most certainly would not win if I gave up. Would you discourage me from participating in the online debate? Would you have my voice silenced? You’re not alone. It seems to be a common thread in the various state marriage fights that dissent from the gay activist position is not tolerated, no matter how mild.

      “This little girl has two moms! It’s reality. Do you want her to be in the closet too?”

      This is actually the most interesting segment of your reply. Against the backdrop that anything less than full acceptance of homosexuality as normal right and good you pose the false range of life choices down to two options. You should always be true to who you are. That is where we differ. In your view who you are is your sexuality. In my view, who you are is a child of God. Being true to who you are is a choice often clouded over with pressures to give in to immorality. I think we can agree that living a false life is not the best choice. What we disagree on is how that is managed.

      Next on the agenda is your defense of teaching of homosexuality in schools, using gay adoption as justification. This makes sense. I believe it would also follow naturally that if Maine were to accept gay marriage, that this would further encourage the teaching of homosexuality in schools. The funny thing is, the opposition’s campaign is blue in the face trying to deny that very logical connection….which of course is the point of the post.

  2. Ross permalink
    October 18, 2009 10:27 pm

    L. Marie: “Gays and lesbians have always existed, but I believe firmly in live and let live”

    LOL, good one.

    • mlabot permalink*
      October 19, 2009 12:02 am

      L. Marie: “Gays and lesbians have always existed, but I believe firmly in live and let live”

      Ross, do you?

    • Gary permalink
      October 19, 2009 4:41 pm

      “There is far too much of a pathological bent in homosexual behavior, specifically between men honestly, to really be convincing.”

      Would you mind backing that up? The whole “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy comes to mind.

      • mlabot permalink*
        October 19, 2009 7:31 pm

        “There is far too much of a pathological bent in homosexual behavior, specifically between men honestly, to really be convincing.”

        “Would you mind backing that up?”

        I was speaking from my experience. It seems to me that male homosexual drives are fundamentally different than female ones. My opinions are still forming on this, but the pathological element I’ve seen with gay men is the same as with heterosexual men who experience sexual addiction. I don’t believe the self loathing, destructive behavior seen in so many gay men is necessarily limited by who they’re attracted to, but rather is an effect of giving unfettered reign to sexual drives. Those are just my thoughts. It’s pathological in men of all orientations because of the lack of control they have over their behavior.

  3. Gary permalink
    October 19, 2009 4:47 pm

    This topic needs a consideration of what you believe, Marie. How do people become gay, in your opinion?

    If children are taught that other families exist and the truth is that people have more or less immutable sexualities (meaning you can’t be taught to become gay), I don’t see where your concern lies. Basically this reads to me like a, “My children won’t be taught that gay people are wrong,” but that comes from my biases and understanding of sexuality, which probably don’t mirror your own.

    Or is it because you’re concerned that gay people (or possibly your own future gay child) won’t be taught to be celibate? They will have an alternative to that design accepted by society thereby leading to their own damnation.

    • mlabot permalink*
      October 19, 2009 7:17 pm

      Gary,

      How do people become gay? I don’t believe people become gay. The feelings you feel are not who you are, they are outside forces acting on you. How do people develop feelings of same sex attraction? I think it’s complex and varies between people. In general it seems science is showing SSA to be a mix of societal influence, experience and genetic factors.

      It’s important to differentiate between how someone feels, or feelings that they experience and immutable traits like the color of your skin or what ethnic heritage you are born with. SSA is not an immutable trait.

      I also believe that rather than look at SSA as a black and white, same sex or opposite sex orientations, that sexual orientation is something that varies from person to person, more like a continuum rather than two separate choices and that it’s possible to move from one end of the spectrum toward the other.

      Those are my thoughts on SSA. My thoughts on homosexual behavior are my own thoughts on morality. They are separate from my thoughts on SSA because one doesn’t necessarily have to do with the other. No one forces anyone to do anything, even if there are at times very strong emotional desires pushing toward action. IE similar to the situation with other cravings, strong emotions, desires, etc.

      My views on how people choose to deal with their appetites and desires is based on my inner moral code. The basis for my objection to homosexuality being taught in the schools is based on the disconnect the gay establishment has between who they are and what they do. I am concerned that my child would be taught that what they do or the emotions they may feel is who they are and that there is no moral choice involved. That is my primary concern.

  4. Gary permalink
    October 19, 2009 11:02 pm

    Thank you, as that was most insightful. By the way, if you have an email you’d rather I’d reach you at since I am most curious to continue this but would duly refrain from cluttering this page, you have mine (garycontrary@live.com), and feel no qualms in contacting me or even deleting this if it is too long. Either way, I’d appreciate the discussion :)

    We’d disagree on a few points, namely the nature of…I guess males and sexuality. I would agree with you that there is a propensity within the male community of gays toward non-committal sex and perhaps licentious acts. However, I do think this is one of our “correlation/causation” faults since, when we have not had a history of holding gays (I use that in the sense of someone who has enduring attractions toward the same-sex, not behavior, and while it might range over time, it far less so with male sexuality than female) to a standard, it cannot be too terribly expected that they would create one on their own. Why should they have developed as a norm long-lasting relationships when the society at large both stigmatizes them and doesn’t even support them? And unlike many straight couples, gay couples cannot be as confident in having family support and blessing in their relationships, something that is indicative of the duration and strength of the relationship in general. Even Ms. Gallagher’s connections to research show this, but as I suspect her motivations are based more on Pope Benedict XVI’s (then Ratizinger) release from the CDF, this isn’t really a concern or valid point–same-sex unions can’t be recognized whatsoever, despite the flowery saving face of presenting a platform that is amicable to providing some rights…yet oddly not present such as in the case of Washington State.

    Anyway, it was only recently that young children who are gay or have enduring SSA could be in supportive environments and not stigmatized–by that I mean the obvious implications of Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and such laws that existed, none of which are conducive to any gay person first wanting to acknowledge their problems, should they exist, to others and much less likely to enter the confidence of a church to have their issues addressed. We have no true indication of how they will turn out, but from my own experience and hearing accounts of these account, I think they’ll be better adjusted.

    As a society, however, those laws and morality become a double-edged sword when looking at the results. We want to put out ideas of morality for the good of the whole, such as stigmatizing same-sex relations, but then we as a society become shocked when within the same-sex community, there arises a counterculture of sorts. The main society has reduced their dignity to act alone, and you see this identity conflict everywhere. Sex becomes the focus or even an unhealthy fixation not because gays are an aberration but partly because you and others have made it such an issue.

    How do people become gay? I would admit that science does not have the answer for that yet. I personally believe it is a mixture of genetics, intrauterine environment, and non-biological factors. I expect nothing less of any complex behavior, and I would posit the same for straight sexuality or any other contained on that continuum. But I disagree with the view, which you may not espouse, that some people have “tendencies” that can become awakened through indoctrination. It’s nothing more than a cover for the contagion hypothesis.

    For SSA’s immutable characteristics…we’ll just have to disagree. I have read the rebuttals by organizations like NARTH, and from hearing from people like Dr. Throckmorton, I’m very ill-convinced of what mutability exists, especially when creating a social policy for all. The number of people who can have successful changes should not diminish the amount of people who cannot, and I am very dubious when some of those definitions of immutability rely on celibacy or abstinence as a qualifier of change, especially when many with the gay community (and myself included) would think that kind of change would be ridiculous for saying that someone who is straight has become gay simply because they don’t have sex anymore. It doesn’t follow, but much worse, it isn’t broadly applicable, and I would think for everyone involved, encouraging gays to have that option of fostering stable relationships rather than shoving them under the carpet is a moral obligation, especially when shoving them under the carpet can lead to behavior (illicit sex, short-term relationships) that make some of us find them damning in the first place.

    It’s akin to throwing dirt on a child and then not letting them inside the house because they’re dirty.

    A final point I’ll say we differ on is the importance of feelings. I would not classify any transient attraction a straight woman or gay woman has to an object of affection as necessarily demanding as the dominance of their orientation toward those objects. I would find it precedes some of the things you mentioned (skin color and ethnic heritage) because as endemic to humanity, sexuality is a part of life, it’s what fosters our connections to an Other, and seems written into our very existence (whether taken from a purely naturalist, evolutionary perspective or one guided by God).

    I’m picking on the Catholic Church here, but that’s why I find their view wholly inconsistent. I find it abjectly less moral for someone with SSA to marry someone who does not. And I do find that the expectation that they should be celibate when they can meet their need for attachment in someone with the same condition…a little callous.

    • mlabot permalink*
      November 6, 2009 6:49 pm

      Sorry for the delay Gary, this comment got filtered into the spambox, I’m not sure why. I just found it.

      You’ve included a lot of information here, but let’s start with this: “we have not had a history of holding gays (I use that in the sense of someone who has enduring attractions toward the same-sex, not behavior, and while it might range over time, it far less so with male sexuality than female) to a standard, it cannot be too terribly expected that they would create one on their own. ”

      Aren’t they held to a standard and haven’t they rejected that standard? Perhaps I have misunderstood your meaning here, but one of the most pronounced recurring themes in the debates I’ve participated in is a universal loathing of religious thought in any degree. It seems to me that choosing to act out these SSA desires is somehow also deeply connected with rejecting religion (which makes sense since religion is all about self restraint of the natural man in order to ascend to a higher plane of existence.)

      One example comes to mind, that of the Jews. Jewish people are classic examples of repressed, loathed people. That is the case in many independently evolving situations, yet the effect on the people as a whole is universally the same. They cling tighter to their religion, their faith and their good practice. They’re good people, not plagued with licentious, degrading behavior, speech or attitudes like I’ve seen in the gay community.

      If this degraded behavior is because of repression, and not sources more similar to sexual addiction, wouldn’t the Jews (or any other repressed people….blacks?) have it also?

      I know you specified in your comment that this was specifically meant to talk about those who experience SSA, but do NOT act on it, however, my experience again (which I admit is not scientific or widely based), is that those who experience SSA without acting out, have not rejected religion, standards etc, and they do not act with the same intensity of rage that those who are actively acting out do.

      • Tobu permalink
        November 13, 2009 5:22 am

        >If this degraded behavior is because of repression, and not sources more similar to sexual addiction, wouldn’t the Jews (or any other repressed people….blacks?) have it also?

        I’m very sorry to have to refute that argument, because I wish so much that you were correct on that point. However, all of the social ills you’ve listed in your post are, indeed, problems in many black communities. Lonely, angry black youth, convinced by the world of their own lack of consequence, often fall into lifelong destructive patterns and harm themselves and others. President Obama himself, before being elected to that office, gave a very well-received speech (by listeners of all phenotypes, including black) about the need for black men to be more responsible and relearn the art of good parenting and husbandry.

        There are, of course, wonderful, healthy, thriving black families as well. There are also wonderful, healthy, thriving families headed by gay couples. I’m close friends with more than a few, and I’ve seen the warm, loving domestic environment a good marriage can create, gay or straight.

        Tell a human being that he or she is worthless, unloved, hellbound, and inconsequential for long enough, and a tragic percentage of us will lose heart and come to match those expectations with their behavior…or start to act out, just for any kind of attention and affirmation of what power they can grab. Try giving them full, invested rights and telling them they are loved and valued by their peers and their God, on the other hand, and watch the wonderful changes that begin to blossom.

      • mlabot permalink*
        November 13, 2009 8:25 am

        Actually, I believe the societal difficulties the black population is suffering is a direct result of the disintegration of the family, not oppression. Slavery has been abolished many many years, yet the crisis in the black community has been only recently, and continues to worsen.

        On the other hand, the Jewish people as a community seem to thrive even amidst persecution, and have for centuries.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: